Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner, a commercial pilot trainee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR registered at under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Sanjeev Narula, J., quashed the FIR and imposed payment of cost of Rs 25,000, as no case for prosecution was made out and the petitioner’s lack of vigilance led to unnecessary involvement of the state machinery, which could have been avoided with greater care.
The FIR was lodged following the discovery of a live round of ammunition in the petitioner’s baggage during security screening at IGI Airport on 29-03-2021. Upon failing to produce valid authorization for the possession of the cartridge, the authorities seized the ammunition and proceeded with criminal action. The petitioner contended that he had been undergoing training in South Africa to become a commercial pilot and was sharing a dormitory with other students. His baggage had been borrowed by his dormitory mates, who frequented shooting ranges for target practice. He argued that, on one such occasion, a live round of ammunition was inadvertently left inside his bag, which he failed to notice before his travel to India. He emphasized that he was completely unaware of its presence and had no intention of carrying the cartridge illegally.
The Court examined the doctrine of “conscious possession,” which requires both physical possession and awareness or intent. It observed that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members possessed a valid arms license. The circumstances indicated that the presence of the live cartridge in the petitioner’s baggage resulted from an oversight rather than a deliberate act. The Court noted that criminal liability under the Arms Act is stringent and must be strictly construed. Given the absence of any firearm, incriminating evidence, or unlawful intent, the Court found that no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was made out.
The Court remarked that “the petitioner’s explanation, that the cartridge was mistakenly left in his bag by others who borrowed it, is plausible. Moreover, no firearm was recovered from the Petitioner, and there is no allegation that he attempted to use the ammunition in any manner that posed a threat to public safety. Given that criminal liability under the Arms Act is stringent and must be construed strictly, the absence of any incriminating circumstances further reinforces the conclusion that the petitioner does not fall within the mischief sought to be prevented by the statute. Consequently, no offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is made out against the petitioner.”
The Court concluded that proceeding with the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the legal process, serving no legitimate purpose other than subjecting the petitioner to undue harassment. However, it acknowledged that the petitioner’s lack of vigilance led to unnecessary involvement of law enforcement agencies. While quashing FIR, the Court imposed a cost of INR 25,000 on the petitioner, directing him to deposit the amount with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within 15 days. The Court clarified that security agencies were justified in treating the incident seriously but reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be continued in cases of inadvertent possession devoid of culpable intent.
Thus, the FIR against the petitioner was quashed, ensuring that no further proceedings would be initiated in connection with the alleged offence.
[Mohd Tarique Rehman v State of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(CRL) 633 of 2023, decided on 28-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Nishant Gupta with petitioner
Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocates for the State. SI Kunal Kishor, PS: IGI Airport, Delhi.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
